Talk:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

Lack of negatives

Is it just me or does this article sound like it was written by the manufacturer? Not a single downside, disadvantage, failure or anything... I dunno, maybe it is just that good... anyone care to look into this --83.67.99.89 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, it's only real disadvantage is cost. They did have to increase the length of parachute static lines because they have more turbulent wake than the c-141. However, it's better than c-141s in every performance respect. We have not seen enough use of them to see if they are reliable in the long run. Identity0 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a slight oversight between the metric and american standard length and wingspan of the aircraft. Knowing very little about this plane I couldn't say which is correct.

---

There are rumours that the german Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Joschka Fischer wants some C-17 for the Luftwaffe.Rabauz 10:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

AGREED! This article is full of writings that overflow with SUBJECTIVE infatuation. It needs a more OBJECTIVE approach in my opinion. There are plenty of downsides and failures in the evolution of this aircraft. How different is the first jet off the line v.s. the ones we see today? The answer is "plenty". It's an exceptional jet, but it does not deserve a temple and associated religion that centers around it, as some writers would like you to believe. There is also quite a bit of soft information that centers around rumor and speculation in regard to procurement and orders. Let's cut out word like "feel" and "pleased" and "amazed" and stick to what is historical and factual. Also, this article is supposed to be about an aircraft, not the units and air forces that fly them. There is another place on Wikipedia for this kind of information. Let's imagine this is an article on an aircraft that has been-and-gone (like a B-17) and treat it with the same kind of objectivity we see in that article. In other words, let's stop trying to sell it and let's stop trying to bolster our own feelings of self-worth just because we fly it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 212.174.237.141 (talk • contribs) 05:03, January 6, 2006

"Soft information" about "rumors and speculation?" Nothing that isn't in the mainstream press. Some of the "rumors and speculation" are based upon direct quotes from the parties who would make such decisions. Can you give some specific examples, rather than levying charges hit-and-run style? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what 212.174.237.141 said. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) does not seem to be interested in providing an NPOV article. Perhaps his aviation enthusiasm has clouded his judgement. The C-17 did have a problematic history but nothing is mentioned in this article about it. Janes "All The Worlds Aircraft" in the 1990's mentions it. Numerous magazines of the period covered it. The US Congress in the 1990's temporarily capped procurement of this aircraft at 40 airplanes (from the original order for 210 aircraft) to search for possibly cheaper alternatives. And yet when one reads this article you get the impression that this airplane is perfect and greater than it actually is. Unfortunately, to even put in a bad word about it here would incur the wrath of aviation enthusiasts who will label you with stuff like for instance, having "an Anti-C-17 bias", in the words of Joseph/N328KF (Talk), even though in truth it is the objectivity of the article that is being critized, not necessarily the airplane. You would have a case here if someone here had said "I hate the C-17! It's a piece of ****. C-5's are the best!". Joseph/N328KF (Talk) must take care not to assume that other people don't know what they're talking about compared to himself. You might learn something you didn't know, or did not want to know because of your own biases and preconceived ideas. Cat Balou 09:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of being critical about the design or capabilities of an aircarft, and specifically the C-17: Any opinion-based critique would need to be qualified by sources. For example if the C-17 were to not perform as advertised, that would be a valid critique, but would need to be sourced by supporting documentation. Otherwise, the best way to balance a fact based article would be through comparison to similar purposed aircraft such as the C-141 (now completely obsolete), the C-130, or the C-5. Otherwise I'm not sure how one would 'balance' a fact based article. It's not as though an aircraft or a car or an earthworm for that matter lend themselves to a lot of subjectivity when discussing the operating paramaters or design characteristics or number of chromosomes or horsepower, etc... These are points of fact rather than opinion. I agree that a manufacturer's press release does not make for the most objective copy, but Boeing and the Air Force are the technical experts in this subject matter so why not defer to those sources?Orion27 27 08:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

C-17s are good.... however, as of today, Jan. 7 2006 West coast time, the Pentagon beaureucratic idiots are planning to mothball production facilities by 2008. This would not only leave production at 180 units only, it would also end California's ability to produce any wide-body commercial aircraft (C-17's are produced in Calif.). This plan is on its way to Congress for more approval.

On a different note, can anyone give me more info on the Iraq 1,000-man airdrop? This is the only place I heard of it.....

It was part of the 173rd airborne, see 173rd_Airborne page at the bottom, or official history at the bottom. Ah, here's a full story from the Army here. Identity0 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted incorrect info about D-Day/Iraq operation, Market Garden and the drop into Germany (Operation Linebacker maybe?) were both larger than D-Day.

This is my first time writing in Wikipedia, so forgive me if I don't observe standards, nuances, etc... this first time. I wanted to take a moment and point out some things I noticed about this article: The article incorrectly leads the reader to believe C-17's are stationed at Dover AFB and Elmendorf AFB. In fact, C-17's will not be assigned to either base for, most likely, at least a year. Also, in the same vain as MARCH ARB is designated as belonging to the Air Reserve Command, Hickam C-17's belong exclusively to PACIFIC AIR FORCES, or PACAF and are the only C-17's so owned. Air Education and Training Command operate the aircraft assigned to Altus AFB, and Air Force Material Command ooperate their own C-17's at Edwards AFB, CA for testing purposes. Additionally, the published take-off/landing ability is actually 3500 ft, and a cruise speed of .76 Mach. Are these things that I should edit directly in the article page? Again, I'm not 100% how this works.Orion27 27 08:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, be bold. Welcome to the project. I have left some links on your talk page that will help you get started. --rogerd 14:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to regard criticism of the program separately from criticism of the aircraft. The cost overruns and missed deadlines of the program are problems that plague the US procurment system in general, and don't really affect the plane.

The plane itself is more expensive on a per-unit basis as well as for the program, though. That's the only real problem that has come up with the plane so far. As I noted earlier, it has a bigger 'wake' behind it so it required parachute static lines to be lengthened, but that only required an 'extension cord' for existing lines.

The only real way that a transport like this can have problems apart from cost/manufacturing is in reliability and maintenence issues, and it's too early to tell if the C-17 will have problems there. None have been lost in combat or accident AFAIK, but it also hasn't seen the kind of use the C-130 has.

It outperforms the transports it was designed to replace (the C-141), and does the tactical and stratiegic airlift well enough to take some of the jobs formerly assigned to the C-130 and C-5. Performance-wise, there have been no problems thus far. I'm not sure what you mean when you want to look more at its shortcomings. Identity0 19:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern USAF Series table=

It looks like the Modern USAF Series table on this page should be replaced with the Template:Active military aircraft of the United States. I'm not familiar with the style of aircraft pages though. Tnikkel 06:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Order

Removed the references to Canada's order. This order is not confirmed, it is not definite. There is a bidding process that MUST be undertaken. Well put, by the Globe and Mail:

"That will be spelled out next week with the release of a notice that the contract has been awarded to the Globemaster's manufacturer, U.S.-based Boeing. Other companies will be allowed to challenge the deal if they can also meet the requirements, but it is widely understood that none will be able to do so."

"it is widely understood that none will be able to do so" is NOT equal to "the planes have been ordered, the contract signed". Further, the government could fall tomorrow, the opposition parties (as this is a minority government) could table some bill to prevent purchase, you name it. Wait until the order is tabled, the contract is signed, and TRUE (not media hype) confirmation is in.

Thanks.Bbarnett 16:36, 30 June 2006

I agree with deleting the CF as an operator but the section on the CF should stay. I have readded it but changed the language to reflect the state of the order. Wakemp 17:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The way to the order is written it is either a little misleading or the price is incorrect: "CF would acquire four strategic lift aircraft at a cost of C$5 billion (US$4.5 billion.) The C-17 is the only aircraft expected to meet this requirement". The phrasing implies US$4.5 billion is the cost of only the aircraft. Only way to have a number that high is to include the maintenance contract. Here's some prices I found:

• C$ 3.4 billion (USD$ 3 billion) program.
• $1.8 million
• $3 Billion dollar deal would include a $2 billion dollar maintenance contract
• Total of C$4.5 billion ($4.1 billion)

btw, even the lowest price seems like a swindle since the unit price per C-17 is supposed to be $333 million (est. 2004). --MarsRover 06:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like someone flipped the C-17 and Herc orders around don't know if that was my edit or not. According to the press release[1];

The estimated total project cost for this strategic lift aircraft acquisition is $1.8 billion, plus an estimated contract value of $1.6 billion for 20 years of in-service support - a contract that will be dependant on the outcome of the ACAN process.

Wakemp 17:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Canada has still not ordered the C-17. The reference #2 says that Canada "will order". All Canada did was select the C-17 Quote: Boeing Corp. will win a controversial contract to provide heavy-lift transport planes and helicopters to Canada's military....." I think the first paragraph should be modified Hudicourt 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo of an RAF Globemaster

I think that this article could use an image of an RAF C-17. I realize that the Crown Copyright is more restrictive than the U.S. gov policy, but if someone could get a free image, I think that would enhance the article. --rogerd 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

balance between users

Normally I find myself arguing for articles to be rebalanced because the United States isn't the only nation on the planet. In this one for once, I'm heading in the other direction - There is more about the RAF and RCAF than the USAF in this article, and about the same amount about the RAAF and Sweden. The RAAF doesn't operate it yet, and Canada and Sweden haven't even ordered it! Anyone care to write a bit more about American use?...

Also, while by all accounts, the present production aircraft is a fine plane, there are negatives - in a politically protracted development, and in particular, in the high price and consequent poor value for money, (perhaps not as visible as it is endemic in new millenium US military aircraft), that has lead to the production being curtailled. If C-17s were availlable for a cost proportional to 1960s aircraft purchases, there would be no A400.Winstonwolfe 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the Proportionality is the timing, if Wikipedia was a going concern when the USAF was taking the A/C into service there would probably be more to write about. That is a little harder now. I am concerned about the German, Sweden, Canadian and Danish sections being a little large compared to their relative importance as operators. I've change the Danish one to be NATO because they are now part of a larger deal - but still not an order. RAF is a current operator, Australia and Canada have roughly equal orders, and Sweden is more a rumour at this point. I don't really want to delete valid content to balance it out though. --Wakemp 15:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree absolutely - I was a pleading for more about the USAF, NOT trying to encourage deletions :-). Winstonwolfe 04:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sections and Order of Precedent

I've resection the article, previously the countries were subheadings of the background. I have broke it into nations that have taken delivery (largest number to smallest number) and nations that have expressed an intent to purchase (largest to smallest order, then alphabetically). Since Canada and Australia have both ordered 4 I listed Australia for both alphabetic and chronological reasons (they ordered first). Once a country takes delivery they should move to the Operator section. --Wakemp 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the 'Other Orders' section label to 'Future Operators'. I thought that was more descriptive. Change to something better if you like. -Fnlayson 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Works for me --Wakemp 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Short Take Off and Landing (STOL)?

Does the C-17's shorter take off and landing distances enough to consider it a STOL aircraft? I've seen it descibed that way once or twice. -Fnlayson 19:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The aircraft is listed in the STOL article, but the definition is a little vague. It merely says that it is an aircraft "with very short runway requirements." Not sure what very short means. --rogerd 21:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I don't know for sure either. STOL is mentioned with regards to the YC-15 in the Background section here, but not really in the Features section where I was expecting it. -Fnlayson 22:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In the answers.com article about STOL [2], part of it contains the WP article, and also contains a citation from Columbia University Press that states: "it has been tentatively defined as an aircraft that upon taking off needs only 1,000 ft (305 m) of runway to clear a 50-ft (15-m) obstacle at the end of that distance and upon landing can clear the same obstacle and then land within 1,000 ft."

C-17 Procurement

Update on number of C-17's funded.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060927/ap/d8kctjdo0.html

"The measure also almost triples Bush's request for eight C-17 cargo planes, providing for 22 of the aircraft, which are built in Long Beach, Calif. Several components are manufactured at Boeing's St. Louis-based defense company."

Wow . . .

I happen to have just seen a C-17 in action today at the Sydney Air Show. I am now far more inclined to see this article as objective than I was before - I was staggered by the dexterity of the thing, and I've never seen STOL performance quite like that! I actually don't thing the article is overstating anything. Just my $2.2 Billion worth. :)Johno 13:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We would not have had the need to buy the C-17 if the Australian Defence Force did not purchase the refurbished second-hand M1A1 Tanks from the Americans. As informed by an RAAF veteran, the low number (4) to be purchased means that only 1 or at maximum 2 airplanes are operational whilst one is used for training and the other one is either being overhauled/being fixed/ or in reserve. Since the plane can carry only one M1A1 tank at a time and because of current doctrine which excludes the use of Paratroopers for Direct Force Entry missions (Thereby eliminating the Parachute Battalion altogether) in favour of Special Operations Troops, purchasing 4 C-17's may well be a very uneconomical choice, not to mention potentially combat ineffective as well. Personally I think we need more C-17's. The number the Air Force should look at to have a viable and useful strategic Airlift capability would be at the very least 12-18 aircraft, if we actually want that capability, in my opinion. Dervish6 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A belief that C-17s exist solely to haul around M1s is pretty short-sighted. 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Government procured the airplane without tender because of the M1, according to an article published by a respected Australian news and current affairs magazine called "The Bulletin", who cited and quoted from serving Department of Defence sources and personel.Dervish6 09:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the proper characterization. RAAF wanted the C-17, and they wanted it badly, for a variety of reasons (of which the M1 was but one.) However, the M1 requirement allowed them to short-track the procurement. N328KF

With respect that is hardly convincing retort. The user above has provided a source, albeit unnamed, and you have not. Keshma 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide accurate information to support your claim about the "RAAF wanting the C-17 so badly" N328KF, in particular any official reports, analysis and quotes saying the Australians were desperate for the Globemaster? Cat Balou 14:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link that I found to the article in question. ("The Wrong War" http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=147567). Though it does not specifically mention the M1 as the reason for the decision to purchase the C-17 "without tender", you can read between the lines. The Australian Navy, the article states, is buying two large amphibious assault ships rather than three small ones, because they can carry the M1. Purchase of the M1 necessitated the purchase of both the C-17 and the Two amphibious assault ships to justify its existence in the Army's inventory. Without these two expensive purchases the Army cannot go anywhere with the Abrams and therefore the Abrams is virtually useless. It's reasons for existence, with lack of resources to help deploy it, would have been shakey. Nothing is mentioned here about any urgent desire by the Royal Australian Air Force to pruchase the C-17. It can be speculated that the RAAF used the Army M1 purchase to argue it's case for acquiring the C-17. Situation normal in the defence procurement world. Cat Balou 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty slanted. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Explain what you mean. Don't you like free press?Cat Balou 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

C-17's Vice must appear in the Article

Combat Aircraft Magazine Vol. 7 No. 7 July 2006, has an article called "Frontline", written by columnist Robert F. Dorr, which states that "Even with an extra internal fuel tank (that was) not part of the original design, the C-17 has disappointing range and is a drain on air refueling assets" I think it valid to put this into the article if no one objects? Dervish6 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you can demonstrate purpose. However, hops (landing/refuelling/takeoffs) are pretty common with cargo hauling, so I am dubious that the point has merit. Furthermore, you came into this situation displaying anti-C-17 bias right off the bat. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You knock me but not the article. Have you even bothered to check it out? Have you even bothered to contact Mr Dorr himself to please explain his position? Where in here do I say that I hate the C-17? Actually I love the C-17, but you can't have a wikipedia (C-17) article here that basically implies its all good and perfect, when there are detractors/concerned individuals out there that have valid points or concerns to raise about the actual utility and capability of this aircraft. To not include negative points in this article would seem to indicate that people like you are not interested in NPOV. Furthermore, the flight profile you allude to assumes that the destination (the airfield) has been secured and has facilities to refuel the C-17 and send it on its merry way back to where it came from. What if it were not the case? What if you had to conduct airborne forced-entry or airdrop resupply at range? Mr Dorr's comments reflect on U.S. operational experience with this airplane in training and actual combat missions. Do we want a good quality wiki article here or an advertisement for Boeing?Dervish6 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate ambiguous comparisons. Disappointing range compared to what? -Fnlayson 15:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You would have to contact Mr Dorr for the specifics. He maybe refering to perhaps the original requirements for what the plane was supposed to do as opposed to actual experience with the airplane in exercises and war operations. Dervish6 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe, or he was comparing to some unreal expection.. -Fnlayson 21:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the biggest clue to Dorr's statement lies with what information this Wiki C-17 Article already has. I point to the extended range provided by the additional fuel tank. A 400 nautical mile range increase is not what you can consider an improvement when we are talking about Strategic Airlift, as opposed to Tactical Airlift. The United States Air Force wanted 222 C-17's as a MINIMUM. That number makes sense if you take Mr Dorr's statement to account. You would not have the likelihood of packing each and every C-17 to the hilt but rather share the load, which on the surface would mean you would be actually able to deliver more cargo at longer range, if you understand what I mean. Dervish6 09:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed with this article was the failure to mention the delays and cost blowout of the C-17 program when the tail section had to be reengineered because of a fault with it's original design. Also the program fell under intense scruitiny in the 1990's with production of this airplane originally capped at 40 examples while the U.S. Government pondered on alternatives such as reopening the production lines for the C-5, and even purchase of militarised 747's. I believe the designation of the military transport 747 variant was, or was to have been the C-33A. Currently the USAF operates the E-4 and VC-25 variants of the 747 and wants to have the Airborne Laser 747 in its inventory as well. Dervish6 09:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has sourced critism of the C-17 then please add it to the main article. No use arguing about it here. Keshma 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See the following article : http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/do-020516-failures-c17.html I dont have time to Edit in the information Also in this article http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=72234&session=dae.22374897.1155673461.ROItdcOa9dUAAEJP--Q&modele=feature It says :

PARIS --- The real cost of U.S. military aircraft continues to be the subject of some debate, especially as the Pentagon’s tendency to change procurement numbers and budget envelopes can easily obfuscate the actual figures and prove confusing.

The prices below are extrapolated from the Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs), submitted to Congress on August 10, 2006. In the SARs, total program costs reflect actual costs to date, when available, or future anticipated costs when not. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.

Our price figures are calculated by dividing the SAR’s total program cost by the number of units to be produced. The resulting unit program cost amortizes research and development costs, and some support costs, over the entire production run, and is thus not an indication of actual acquisition prices.

It is, however, the simplest, clearest and most accessible measure of weapon costs available.

The cost given for each of the Boeing C-17s is 330.8 Million dollars.

Hudicourt 15:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is by no means a viable source. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're a bit quick to reply. Did you even read it. Plus I mentionned two articles. You read both and neither is viable? Hudicourt 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

POGO gave their sources: BC-17X Public/Private Acquisition Strategy: Request For Information United States Air Force and The Boeing Company, December 8, 2000 C-17 Aircraft: Cost And Performance Issues, GAO/NSIAD-95-26, January 1995; Military Airlift: Options Exist for Meeting Requirements While Acquiring Fewer C-17s, GAO/NSIAD-97-38, February 1997; Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Report, Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, March 2001; C-17 Globemaster: Support of Operation Joint Endeavor, GAO/NSIAD-97-50, February 1997; C-17 Airframe Specifications, Boeing Company; C-17 Aircraft: RM&A Evaluation Less Demanding Than Initially Planned, GAO/NSIAD-96-126, July 1996.

How are those for unreliable sources? Hudicourt 15:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Unit costs should be the Total Flyaway Cost as described here, not a simple total cost divided number of units. -Fnlayson 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent CAF additions

I have removed the following lengthy section from the article:

Specific requirements are that the aircraft must carry 39,000 kg (86,000 lbs) a distance of 6,500 km (3,500 nm) and operate from runways of 4,000 ft. Although the C-17 is capable of achieving these parameters, there is logistics concerns regarding cruising distance with maximum load: The C-17 can carry at maximum only one Main Battle Tank at a time, due to the maximum weight, and fuel/distance limitations of the C-17. However, the much larger Russian built AN-124, the acknowledged largest military cargo plane available, can carry atleast two Main Battle Tanks, has a considerably larger cruising distance with Full load, and whose price is comparably less than the C-17 (although has perceived deficiencies related to Russian aerospace technology) would be a far superior value purchase, with upgraded avionics and engines supplied by other notable manufacturers. However, there may still be disagreement in the aerospace community regarding reliability, and maintainabity of the An-124 versus the C-17. However, these concerns should be more than off-set by the lower acquisition costs, and still yet, likely lower maintenance, and parts-replacement costs of the An-124. Although not intended to endorse acquisitions of brand new An-124s, the Canadian Armed Forces already currently leases on a temporary basis these Heavy Lift Aircraft. There should be options for the Canadian Tax-payer to consider.

As officially stated, the first delivery of the heavy airlifter would be required within eighteen months and the last no later than 48 months. Boeing has stated it would be able to achieve this by arranging for the U.S. Air Force to defer delivery slots, (allowing for foreign allied-nation purchases) similar to the arrangement governing the Australian C-17 order to intercede American placed orders.

On September 9, 2006, Boeing said they would likely secure both the equipment and maintenance contract, largely because no other company can meet the contract requirement. Naturally, a lack of market competition for maintenance & equipment repair/parts-replacement contracts will result in higher related costs associated with maintaining the C-17, to the Canadian taxpayer.

Absolutely none of this was sourced, but there were other reasons for its deletion as well. Please read the following links before attempting to re-add any of this or similar material.

• Wikipedia:No original research
  • Wikipedia:Cite
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  • Wikipedia:Criticism
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

It's important that "facts" are backed up by published reliable sources. Unless one can find and cite such sources, such edits will have to be deleted.

Thanks. - BillCJ 13:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The middle paragraph is mostly mine, I believe. I am pretty sure the data for that is in one of the attached links. In any case, you can tell by CAF's delivery dates that USAF would have had give them delivery slots. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I reverted to the edit before his (which was one of yours, btw), so all the original content was retained. I block-copied the whole section, and tried to take out what I knew was there before. If you want to double-check what was yours, and take it out above, I have no problem with that. - BillCJ 14:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that first paragraph seems mighty speculative. I see no Boeing press release supporting the 3rd paragaph.[3]-Fnlayson 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the reference to Boeing giving out US Air Force slots to Canada since no references are given and that there is not trace of any such thing anywhere Hudicourt 04:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mark things like that with a {{fact}} or {{cn}} tag to give folks a chance to add a reference. -Fnlayson 06:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry. I did some research and this is the best I found from a Blog:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/hon-gordon-oconnor-pc-at-albany-club.html "Apparently the USAF has graciously agreed to swap production slots with us and we will take delivery of our first C-17 in May or June of next year. He actually recalled, off-the-cuff, the production tail numbers we would be assigned, although my memory is not good enough to cite them here." Hudicourt 06:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweden

• Now that Sweden has signed a letter of intent to join the NATO C-17 pool and that the previously stated reference to Sweden's order is no longer on the Ministry's Web page, shouln't that whole Sweden paragraph be deleted, up to the part I just added? It is highly unlikely that Sweden will buy 2 C-17s and join the NATO C-17 pool Hudicourt 04:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete it. Amend it such that it reflects the fact that the efforts were combined. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ok. Hudicourt 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Can we please use more descriptive refs titles than "Strategic Airlift Capability?" Or at least stick to something close to the standard? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Commerical version

I had forgetten about the MD-17/BC-17. Just seems like this content should go in the History section though. I mean it went nowhere (no future/potential operatirs) besides getting some FAA certification. Anybody got a problem with this move? Or a better idea? Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the BC-17 is still on offer. The WSJ even made mention of it at some point last year. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that settles it. I hadn't heard anything about it in years. Nevermind then. -Fnlayson 04:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here, they even reference it as late as Sep. 2005. [4] —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Section Cleanup

Latest news is 3.4 billion dollars purchase price for a mere FOUR C-17 Globemaster planes, plus 1.6 billion costs for lifetime maintenance, plus 800 million dollars for introduction and training. One billion will be reimbursed by Boeing into canadian economy development.

These costs are astronomical, looks like a major case of bribery and scandal on the order of the Avro Arrow conspiracy. Some canadian decision-makers should be shot on the sport for corruption! This money would buy an entire squadron of 12 brand new IL-76MD cargo planes, which are very proven technology. Me thinks canadian public will not swallow this one-sided deal, which profits America and only America. 193.226.227.153 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on Canada was way, way, WAY too detailed, especially considering the size of the sections on the nations that are already operating the C-17. Unfortunately my fellow Canadians seem to know how to reproduce details, but the ability to edit seems to be lacking. I have removed some of the more esoteric details of the procurement history and left only some major milestones. Even so, it is still too long, but I will err on the side of caution. Below are the paragraphs I removed, which are redundant or provide unnecessary detail. I'd advise that we don't put them back:

In June 2006, Minister of National Defence Gordon O'Connor submitted to cabinet a $15 billion wish list for the military. This list reportedly included both strategic and tactical lift aircraft, which is seen as a compromise between the minister and Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier since Hillier has stated his preference of the military acquiring tactical over strategic lift aircraft.

Specific requirements are that the aircraft must carry 39,000 kg (86,000 lbs) a distance of 6,500 km (3,500 nm) and operate from runways of 4,000 ft. First delivery must be within eighteen months and the last no later than 48 months.

On August 11 2006, Public Works Canada announced the ACANs resulted in Statements of Capabilities being submitted from two companies for the Strategic Airlift Project. "The Statements of Capabilities were reviewed in accordance with government policy, to ensure objectivity and fairness to the challengers. The Statements did not demonstrate that the challengers could meet the mandatory requirements published in the ACANs. The companies have been notified of the results and the procurement process will continue."

On September 9, 2006, Boeing said they would likely secure both the equipment and maintenance contract, largely because no other company can meet the contract requirement. The first C-17s could be delivered by the end of 2008. The Canadian Department of National Defence is expected to make an official announcement in Spring 2007. Boeing would be able to meet this by arranging for a deferment of U.S. Air Force deliveries, similar to the arrangement with the Australian C-17 order, which is a request Canada has been considering making.

Aardvark114 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good work. It seems to grow exponentially every time something new comes out. The Australian section here has the same tendency. This seems to be a common phenomenon on American aircraft pages, though I have noticed it with other nations' aircraft also, in that the info on the smaller customers sometimes begins to out pace that of the nation of origin. The new Canadian Forces Template even listed the CF-22 as a potential fighter!

Now, there are several articles on Canadian variants of aircraft that could use alot of work, if these editors would like to help the cause of Canadian aviation of Wiki. The CH-146 Griffon, for example, has one short paragraph, and this for a helicopter that's built in Canada! I can name others if anyone's interested in helping out. - BillCJ 06:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)